Planned Parenthood gets $375,000 from DC ObamaCare exchange

posted at 2:01 pm on August 14, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

In the final days of the ObamaCare debate in March 2010, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) demanded a floor vote on an amendment that would have barred any funds allocated in the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges from being given to abortion clinics. Stupak had enough votes from the small minority of pro-life Democrats to derail the whole bill over the issue, forcing Nancy Pelosi to try to carve out a deal that would take the Stupak amendment off the floor. Pelosi succeeded when Barack Obama promised an executive order barring funds for abortionists, which gave Democrats the votes necessary to send the ACA to the White House for Obama’s signature. Stupak retired rather than face angry constituents in November 2010.

Washington, D.C.’s health insurance exchange has awarded a $375,000 grant to abortion provider Planned Parenthood to help enroll participants in Obamacare, the exchange announced on Tuesday.

As part of its effort to boost enrollment in the exchange created by President Obama’s health care law, the D.C. Health Benefit Exchange doled out $6.4 million to 35 DC-based groups. Those groups include local churches as well as health care and community organizations.

One of the largest awards went to Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington D.C. A full list of groups is available here.

“We are excited to create these partnerships with trusted organizations that have deep roots in the communities that make up the District of Columbia,” Diane C. Lewis, chair of the exchange’s executive board, said in a statement.

Spurred by a group of anti-abortion lawmakers, the Government Accountability Office is investigating how Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, and other prominent family planning-related organizations spend public funds, the GAO confirmed Friday.

More than 50 members of Congress had written in February to Comptroller General and GAO head Gene Dodaro asking the office to follow up on a 2010 GAO report that detailed federal monies provided to the groups. …

The request from lawmakers asked the GAO to look into a list of family planning organizations, including Planned Parenthood, Guttmacher, The Population Council and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, and report the amount of federal funding awarded to them and how that funding was distributed. It also seeks a report on “exactly how many women’s health services including family planning services are provided by community health centers and federally qualified health centers, a comprehensive list of these services, and the number of individuals served in each category.”

Though federal funds can’t be used for abortions, they can be used by groups that provide abortions as long as the money pays for other services.

Several supporters of the request hailed the GAO’s decision to investigate.

“Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide abortions clearly benefit from Uncle Sam, but there’s no accounting to prove how they actually use that money,” Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said in a statement. “This GAO report would shine a light on how our tax dollars are being spent.”

The Christian Post noted that abortion isn’t the only issue with the use of federal funds:

The Government Accountability Office has announced that it will investigate Planned Parenthood’s use of taxpayers’ dollars amid recent cases against abortion providers that have fraudulently over-billed Medicaid, and other family planning programs.

Obama didsign the EO on March 24, 2010, after signing the ACA into law. However, it did nothing to stop the shell game that allows federal subsidies to the nation’s largest abortion-mill chain, as Democrats attempted to do in playing bait-and-switch with Stupak by pushing the Ellsworth amendment in November 2009. It continues the charade that federal funds received by PP have nothing to do with the hundreds of thousands of abortions it conducts each year as its core business. This payout by the DC ObamaCare exchange shows just how badly Stupak and other pro-life Democrats got snookered in March 2010.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Somebody really should try to find Stupid Stupak and ask him how he feels about Obamacare these days. He cut a deal with the devil (literally) and never got the personal rewards he thought were going to be coming his way. He was definitely not hailed as a hero back in MI. And his excuse that he did it to get pro-life language in Obamacare was just top cover.

I hope the worthless prick is ashamed of his vote in the early hours of the morning.

Though federal funds can’t be used for abortions, they can be used by groups that provide abortions as long as the money pays for other services.

Because all the smart people know you can separate the water in the tub.

Mitt Romney’s horse is (potentially) costing me money. For consistency’s sake, I oppose welfare recipients keeping pets if it costs me money — that is, if their TANF payment increases based on the number of pets they’re feeding. Also, for consistency’s sake, I have no problem with the Romneys keeping a dressage horse whose grooming does not become a tax write-off.

Here’s the problem — you clearly didn’t think this question through, because a non-taxpayer funded cat is not the equivalent of a show horse that doubles as a tax write off.

Just how do you discern that none of those federal funds were used for abortions?

Bitter Clinger on August 14, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Frankly, I think it is a distinction without difference. They are still killing children even if the federal funding goes to pay for the power bill or printing up the material used to “counsel” clients.

But, of course, Stupak knew that there was never any intention of cutting off funding from one of OFAs most prolific partners.

They weren’t “snookered.” It was kabuki theater to dupe those who can still be duped.

Doomberg on August 14, 2013 at 2:15 PM

They don’t even make the attempt ad duping anymore. They just decide if they are going to follow the law or not. Seriously what does it matter what the ACA says when the rat-eared wonder, apparently, gets to decide if and when the provisions of the law will actually be enacted? The ACA is supposed to be fully on line in January- BY LAW. How’s that working out?

They weren’t “snookered.” It was kabuki theater to dupe those who can still be duped.

Doomberg on August 14, 2013 at 2:15 PM

While it was going on, I thought Stupak was sincere. After he accepted the EO in lieu of his amendment, I realized that it was all political theater and he was just playing his part. That realization was cemented when he retired. Surely he must have known that the EO was worthless.

Going all the way back to the Peter Zenger trial in 1733, the foundation of our very own First Amendment, it has been American, all-American, to lampoon the President (and governance) every time he fumbles or steps off the reservation of Constitutional legality.

We have a First Amendment to protect speech government finds objectionable…it is our Right to be objectionable to government…it is government’s duty to respect that Right.

We have a First Amendment to protect speech government finds objectionable…it is our Right to be objectionable to government…it is government’s duty to respect that Right.

coldwarrior on August 14, 2013 at 2:32 PM

That was before somebody dared mock the first black President. Different race, different rules. The same will be true for gender should cankles win in 2016.

Now rodeo clowns have to take sensitivity training. I can just see a bunch of clowns sitting around the “trust circle” and being required to discuss their inner feelings. Again, this is because they dared mock a filthy rat-eared bastard who can’t take a joke.

BTW, this story has really spiraled out of all proportion. Sorta like the government of Switzerland getting involved because an angry fat black woman claims that she was a victim of racism at a high-end store.

Mocking the first black President wasn’t a very good idea. Especially one so thin-skinned.

Happy Nomad on August 14, 2013 at 2:30 PM

That dude is Screwed, Blued and Tattooed. The IRS is going to be so far up his butt they will know what he had for breakfast before he does. He is the sacrificial lamb of the week. They tried it with Zimmerman but that didn’t work. Had to find another chump and they did.

Who’s writing the checks for all these criminal operations and boondoggles? I mean, how does the money physically get to these outfits, from where, and where is the “paper trail” for the authority to do so? Directly from the Prez? One of his aides? Cabinet members?

Would really like to know for my own personal edification-not that it matters one bit in the grand scheme of things.

Who’s writing the checks for all these criminal operations and boondoggles? I mean, how does the money physically get to these outfits, from where, and where is the “paper trail” for the authority to do so? Directly from the Prez? One of his aides? Cabinet members?

Would really like to know for my own personal edification-not that it matters one bit in the grand scheme of things.

Going all the way back to the Peter Zenger trial in 1733, the foundation of our very own First Amendment, it has been American, all-American, to lampoon the President (and governance) every time he fumbles or steps off the reservation of Constitutional legality.

We have a First Amendment to protect speech government finds objectionable…it is our Right to be objectionable to government…it is government’s duty to respect that Right.